+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare



Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare



Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 3(2): 89-96



Widespread reliance on animal models during preclinical research and toxicity testing assumes their reasonable predictivity for human outcomes. However, of 20 published systematic reviews examining human clinical utility, located during a comprehensive literature search, animal models demonstrated significant potential to contribute toward the development of clinical interventions in only two cases, one of which was contentious. Included were experiments expected by ethics committees to lead to medical advances, highly-cited experiments published in major journals, and chimpanzee experiments-the species most generally predictive of human outcomes. Seven additional reviews failed to demonstrate utility in reliably predicting human toxicological outcomes such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Results in animal models were frequently equivocal, or inconsistent with human outcomes. Consequently, animal data may not generally be considered useful for these purposes. Regulatory acceptance of non-animal models is normally conditional on formal scientific validation. In contrast, animal models are simply assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. These results demonstrate the invalidity of such assumptions. The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of animal models, combined with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, necessitate considerably greater rigor within animal studies, and justify a ban on the use of animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 056093473

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18474018


Related references

Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Contributions Toward Human Healthcare. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 3(2): 89-96, 2008

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35(6): 641-659, 2008

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35(6): 641-659, 2007

Animal experiments scrutinised: systematic reviews demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Altex 24(4): 320-325, 2008

Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ 324(7335): 474-476, 2002

A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part. B, Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Animal Experiments with Guidelines for Reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B: Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360(9333): 586, 2002

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. Ilar Journal 55(3): 427-437, 2015

Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014(3): Ed000078, 2014

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ 331(7508): 110-111, 2005

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 17(1): 48, 2017

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Systematic Reviews 8(1): 29-29, 2019

The study design elements employed by researchers in preclinical animal experiments from two research domains and implications for automation of systematic reviews. Plos One 13(6): E0199441, 2018